U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Rocha v. Antonovich
This writing
- Type
- Opinion of the Court
- Per curiam
- Yes — no individual author
- Filed
- May 15, 2002
- Case
- Rocha v. Antonovich
- Case status
- Decided
Source The opinion is per curiam: issued in the name of the court, with no individual author. This is a fact about the opinion, not missing data.
Opening text
The first passage of the document, as extracted by the source provider.
ORDER Because the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require further argument, see United States v. Hooton, 693 F.2d 857 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam), we grant appellee’s motion for summary affirmance, see Brewster v. Shasta County, 275 F.3d 803 (9th Cir.2001); Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729 (9th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we summarily affirm the district court’s judgment. All pending motions are denied as moot. AFFIRMED.…
Source Extract supplied by CourtListener. Benchlight does not host the document — read the authoritative text in the court's own PDF.